Cannabis Sativa

thcscience_admin
Shortcuts


Featured List Medal

The Featured List Medal
Sorry if this page is the wrong location to place a recognition, but I wanted to thank and congratulate all involved in the success and construction of the TFL proposal! Well done! Looking forward to seeing featured lists on the Main Page. Another Believer (Talk) 17:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Backend for TFL is done!

In the past week, I have been building the backend for TFL, based on code from WP:TFA. Sorry RexxS, most of your code didn't survive, except for {{TFLcontent}}. I tried to keep things as simple as possible. Here is the template structure (using June 6 as example):

The main page (test page here) simply transcludes Wikipedia:Today's featured list/June 6, 2011 on mondays, or Template:TFLempty when missing. The active TFL and the templates it uses are automatically protected by way of cascading protection from the main page (but it can't hurt to protect the templates anyway).

This may look more complicated then it is. All that is needed to make Today's Featured List is:

  1. Go to this months archive.
  2. Click on Edit for the choosen day. {{TFLcontent}} will be pre-loaded.
  3. Fill in all the fields.
  4. Enter the links for the three previous TFLs from the archive. There is no way to automate this.
  5. Preview and Save. The archive should now show the newly created TFL for that day.
  6. Go to the article's talk page and add the |maindate= parameter, with the date (in the form June 6, 2011) that the list will be featured, to the {{ArticleHistory}} template.
  7. Place {{[[Template:{TFL-editnotice|{TFL-editnotice]]}} to the article's edit notice.

Wikipedia:Today's featured list shows (last) Monday's FL and next Monday's FL. Comments welcome. Ping me if there are questions or problems. — Edokter (talk) — 20:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks great! I think we're about ready to get this going live soon (I hope). — KV5 • Talk • 22:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How exciting! I am confused, though. Have any lists actually been featured on the Main Page yet? Hopefully I will understand the system and process more once everything gets up and running. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, Today's featured list is not live yet, but it is now ready to go. It is up to the TFL director(s) to say the word. Meanwhile, I still have to work on Today's featured sound, and I don't know if both are to be launched at the same time or not. — Edokter (talk) — 15:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, one FL has appeared on the Main Page, though not as part of TFL. Moons of Saturn was featured earlier this year as part of the 10th anniversary of Wikipedia. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deployment

As I understand it, discussion on the Main Page already resulted in consensus to add TFL and TFS to the main page. Now that the technical part of TFL is done, and not being dependent on TFS (which I'm working on now), I can't see a reason not to deploy beginning with next monday. Of course this is up to the directors. I just need to copy the relevant part to the Main Page. — Edokter (talk) — 13:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TRM is away right now, but I'm more than ready to get TFL going. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just say the word (I'm just the technical guy). A note on the Main Page talk page may be appropriate though. — Edokter (talk) — 14:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats, Dabomb, on your new appointment with TFA – having a bridge between both topics will be most welcome. If I recall correctly, the debate on Talk:Main Page implied that the implementation would be taken back to Main Page for confirmation before going live. It may be only a formality, but I'd suggest that a post letting the editors at Talk:Main Page know that we're ready would be a courtesy. --RexxS (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. I've asked Giants2008 to comment here first in case there are any other details we need to work out. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I've manually archived a couple of the previous threads as Edokter's system supersedes the old structure I used for practice, and it will be less confusing to just have the proper instructions here. Hope that's OK. --RexxS (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Getting formal approval will in all probability delay the launch by another week, but that's nothing in the scheme of things. Huge thanks to Edokter, RexxS, Adam (I know he has now left) and everyone else who has worked on the technical side of this. —WFC— 14:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quick question: the recently featured lists is fundamentally the same as what is on TFA, but the difference here is that we currently don't have any lists for a recently featured section, unless you count the one from January 15. Is the recently featured space going to have empty portions for the first few lists we do? On the main TFL page, the space is currently showing lists to be featured later, which I find terribly confusing. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good point. If I had it my way, for the first few weeks would have some sort of encouragement to get involved with FLC and/or TFL, but non-standard self-referential content tends to be strongly frowned upon. Assuming that it doesn't cause a major technical problem, I guess we just leave it blank for the first week, and let the recently featured line grow over the following few weeks? —WFC— 17:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(←) Those are just there or testing (and could be removed from the individual test TFLs). — Edokter (talk) — 17:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to confirm, the recently featured issue has now been resolved. —WFC— 15:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edokter, can you create a template similar to {{FA/BeenOnMainPage}} that changes the link color of WP:FLs that have been on the Main Page (I believe it works in conjunction with CSS)? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is: Template:FL/BeenOnMainPage. You have to put the associated CSS in your own skin though, like so: span.featured_list_metadata.has_been_on_main_page a { color: #006400; } (or whatever color you like). — Edokter (talk) — 09:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, works like a charm. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New blurbs

Where are new blurbs being written and proposed? Here? Or still elsewhere? — KV5 • Talk • 18:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They appear in the archive. Request can be made at Wikipedia:Today's featured list/requests, As soon as it's been set up (or just start the page yourself). — Edokter (talk) — 18:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so should all of the preparatory blurbs just be copied to that page? The ones that were already created previously, I mean? — KV5 • Talk • 18:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have begun (a very rough version) of Wikipedia:Today's featured list/requests. Please fiddle around with it and add examples of the point-gaining criteria. Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Made a slight change to the criteria for related lists appearing as TFL. As we're starting off weekly and not daily, I think penalising a list three points for a related list having been on in the past two weeks is a bit much. Please feel free to change it back if you disagree. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, definitely don't hold yourself back. I copied-and-pasted the content from WP:TFAR and made slight modifications. The current wording is by no means "ready". Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A points system of sorts is fine by me. But we shouldn't make the one big mistake that TFA makes. There is no real reason why lists couldn't sustain a more regular slot in the long term. My take on why TRM was so against this idea when we made the initial proposal is that he (or Raul, Dabomb or Giants) would spend every other day having to find an acceptable list, get any cleanup done, and write the blurb. Early on, demand is going to dramatically outstrip supply. We should capitalise on this, and continue to build up a pool of blurbs. That should also help with longer term participation levels. —WFC— 11:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. — KV5 • Talk • 11:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Short term selection process

Right. Priority number one is to organise ourselves, so that we can finally get lists onto the main page. Here's my proposal on how to do it efficiently.

I would suggest that we leave Wikipedia:Today's featured list/requests alone until The Rambling Man gets back. The basic premise is good, but I don't like the idea of starting with a points system that we know will be radically altered in a matter of weeks. It seems silly to attempt to reach consensus without any sort of input from The Rambling Man, although at the same time I'm sure he wouldn't want to put back the entire launch by a couple of weeks just to give him time to have his say.

Assuming a 13 June launch, my suggestion would be to use List of signs and symptoms of diving disorders, List of female United States Cabinet Secretaries and Bodley's Librarian on the 13th, 20th and 27th respectively, with the intention of having the points system up and running for the first week of July. As an interim measure, and to capitalize on the anticipated initial interest, we should encourage nominators to draft blurbs, and submit them to User:The Rambling Man/Main page FL candidates Wikipedia:Today's featured list/submissions, which TRM or Dabomb can later move over to User:The Rambling Man/Main page FL candidates when they're main-page ready. In turn, hopefully a people making submissions be interested in helping out around TFL, and in time contribute to the points/article selection discussion. In my opinion we should move TRM's userpage to the project space, but that should probably be left to him to decide.

Any thoughts? —WFC— 23:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Modified —WFC— 15:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two quick driveby queries

  1. Is there any process in place to compare this list against the TFA queue to prevent the mainpage being swamped with coverage of a particular topic (running a list of world heavyweight champions on the same day Raul schedules a bio of a boxer as TFA, say)? If such a situation does arise—and I can easily see requests for List of hurricanes as TFL and Hurricane Norbert as TFA on International Hurricane Day (or whatever)—which request takes precedence if it's decided only to run one or the other?
  2. Is there a mechanism for warning primary contributors when one of their lists is scheduled? As you know, unexpected TFAs have caused—er—potential breaches of the civility policy on occasion, both from people who were holding an article back for an anniversary and didn't notice it had been scheduled until it was already on the main page, and from people who come home from work and find that the article they spent three months working on has degenerated into a slurry of vandalism and POV-warring. (I have no dog in this race—I've only ever written one FL—but based on both TFA and the (awesomely irritating) recent development of driveby DYK nominations, I can pretty much guarantee someone will complain.) – iridescent 20:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. We would normally schedule a week or even two in advance, which is further ahead than TFA. Another fail-safe is that Dabomb is involved in both processes. In the event that there is a clash, I think TFA should move if its article is not date-specific, and we should move if it is. If by any chance they both are, we'll play it by ear.
2. There isn't yet, but we have done so for the initial batch, and are conscious that one way or another it is desirable to do so going forward. The Rambling Man has a pool of roughly 13-15 lists that several of us looked over, and every significant contributor to those was informed. As of the time of this post, of all the TFL blurbs we have, the only significant contributor that hasn't been informed is the FL nominator of the Doctor Who list, and I'll get onto that now. —WFC— 20:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, when are we going to have a discussion on the creation of the point system?—Chris!c/t 21:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They'll start very soon after the first couple of lists go onto the main page I imagine. But how long the discussions will take is like asking how long a piece of string is. Judging by my general Wikipedia experience, I reckon a points system could conceivably be up and running as early as July, or as late as October. The system of TRM, Dabomb and Giants choosing lists won't be universally popular, but it will most certainly get the job done, so the emphasis should be on getting the new selection criteria right, rather than getting it quickly. —WFC— 23:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Odds and ends to sort out

Here is a list of things that I believe need to be done between now and Sunday, with reasons for why they can't be done immediately where appropriate. This is a wiki, so feel free to edit, add to or strike through these as appropriate.

  • Edit Talk:Main Page/HelpBox to incorporate Today's featured list – can't be done until the proposal is accepted.
  • Edit {{Main Page toolbox}} to incorporate Today's featured list – can't be implemented until the proposal is accepted, but should be started ASAP as it may require a redesign.
  • Edit Main Page, Main Page/Tomorrow and Main Page/Yesterday (and others) after proposal is accepted.
  • Fill the 6 June slot with a generic, welcome to Today's featured list type blurb – would be a nice touch, would help ensure that people know that the 13 June list was the first list, and make sure that Dickin Medal is not incorrectly kept in the archive.
  • Delete Wikipedia:Today's featured list/May 2011 and associated subpages – can't be done until 7 June in UTC.

—WFC— 15:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do a point system. Try something else!

Why not do something different from how Raul does it? Maybe you will find a better way.

As it is now, he makes the call in any case, so the point system seems overly beaurocratic for something that ends with a gut call anyhow.

Instead of that, why not just have submitters make a plea (in words) for their topic and why it is special. Maybe give them a few topics to adress (importance, diversity, quality, etc.) Then let people discuss and support/oppose the running of the TFL. Realisitcally, your number of slots is much less than your inventory...so you really ought to be running stuff that is the best of the best (on multiple dimensions). A list of left-handed Albanian goalies from 2006 is <<< List of Bodleyian Librarians in terms of taking up space on the page, showing the project favorably, etc.

TCO (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. Yes, people will differ in how much they value anniverserie-ness versus notability. Or sports/pop-topics versus "Great Books". But so what. Letting them at least discuss things in words, will benefit you by fleshing out ideas and inform you better as you make choices. Oh...and that page gets very little traffic and has only a couple regulars. I think the community would be more energized and participate more, with a bit more free-form discussion.

TCO (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that we shouldn't necessarily be a clone of TFA, and that we need to be mindful of not ending up as a fortnightly sports section. That said, I think this discussion is best left until lists have been on the main page for a couple of weeks. Any discussion at the moment is proposing a solution before we know what the problems are. —WFC— 17:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, absolutely. Get the thing on the page. Run with the inital picked stuff. Figure out how you want to do requests, later. I am sooooo on your side and appreciate your diplomatic approach. TCO (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In preparation...

I've moved Wikipedia:Today's featured list/June 13, 2011 to Wikipedia:Today's featured list/June 13, 2011 (temp), and moved Wikipedia:Today's featured list/June 6, 2011 to Wikipedia:Today's featured list/June 13, 2011 (leaving a redirect), so both spots now display the welcome blurb. I also uploaded local copies for both image and protected them... something that needs to be added to the task list as well (although manual protection is not really necessary because of cascading protection). — Edokter (talk) — 13:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All odds and ends are tied. To put the original June 13 back in place, move June 13, 2011 back to June 6, 2011 (without leaving a redidect), then move June 13, 2011 (temp) back to June 13, 2011 (also without redirect). — Edokter (talk) — 00:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's sorted. — KV5 • Talk • 00:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except, WFC did plan to do so about 2 hours before it hit the main page (sunday 22:00 UTC). — Edokter (talk) — 00:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I thought that was a "someone needs to do this" thing. I'll put it back. — KV5 • Talk • 00:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Already done. — Edokter (talk) — 00:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Just trying to help out. — KV5 • Talk • 01:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was going along with your idea Edokter [1]. Although having thought about it, it might be best to put it in the archive now. It'd be incredibly embarrassing if Wikipedia went down later today, and the welcome ended up on the main page. Such things have happened before. And someone is bound to complain while we're asleep! —WFC— 01:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you say. Moving it back. — Edokter (talk) — 01:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And everything is back in place. No more manual intervention required. — Edokter (talk) — 01:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back, just in time?

Hello TFL folks (that sounds cool!) and a pleasure it's been to come back from holiday and see all this! I'll do my best to catch up with the last two weeks of discussion; if anyone can give me a summary so much the better. Well done on keeping the ball rolling!! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the formal proposal on the main page is pretty good summary to be honest.
I took a little bit of licence in scheduling the first three lists – List of signs and symptoms of diving disorders, List of female United States Cabinet Secretaries and Bodley's Librarian are lined up for the 13th, 20th and 27th respectively – I figured that would be fine because you OK'd all the lists at User:The Rambling Man/Main page FL candidates. Other than that, we're very much working with a blank canvass. The submissions page is already live, with no instructions whatsoever other than that the blurb should be roughly 1000 characters plus a guide on how to use the template.
Possibly our first priority should be to work out the list selection mechanics. FWIW, my vision is that we should accept all blurbs once they have been checked for grammar and a freely licenced image, and that any points system/alternative selection criteria should only apply once blurbs reach User:The Rambling Man/Main page FL candidates. That way, nobody is wasting their time drafting a blurb, and we are building up "stock" for future use. That said, waiting until the launch before having a proper discussion on this would probably make more sense. I'm sure there are several future regulars that don't even know that TFL exists yet. —WFC— 20:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks. I'll do some more proper reading when I feel less tired tomorrow, but that all seems good and dandy to me. Yes, those lists in my userspace were fine and good to go, so no worries there. Will have a think more about submission instructions and selection processes in due course... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Selection system

I believe the FL directors are picking a few FLs to start us off just so we can all find our feet (I say we, but I've been very much a passenger in the process) and then we'll move to a more TFA/R-type system. Can I suggest we do things a little differently to TFA (when we get there, of course)?

My suggestion would be to take nominations of FLs at "TFL/R" (which I think is where we're going). If there's no competition for the date and the list is up to scratch, then it should just be scheduled without the need for pointless, drive-by supports like we we get at TFA/R. If a nomination is contentious for any reason, then we should have a discussion (not a vote or a !vote), but we should explicitly not have voting or !voting, because that rarely achieves anything, and a presumption that the nominated FL will be scheduled unless it's contentious. We should also be very wary of introducing a points system, which is inevitably going to be a substitute for meaningful discussion, and runs the risk of trying to evaluate subjective values (like importance) using objective criteria, which just doesn't work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think HJ has a point here, TFAs are not consulted with editors because they are published daily, unlike TFLs. Those lists can be requested with some advance time. ۞ Tbhotch™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 02:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I probably overstated the "need" for a points system at the proposal; my intention was merely to make clear that community input will be sought going forward. What is certain is that the directors are not going to unliaterally select forever, but there's no hard date for when that will stop. If it takes us six months to devise something that works, they'll no doubt do it for six months.

In principle I agree with every word of that HJ. My only concern in practise is that around 35% FLs are sports lists. That percentage does not bother me. Our most prolific editors are great at writing lists on topics that interest them, and that's fantastic. But we need to very carefully find a balance between showcasing the fine work that these people produce, and ensuring that other fields receive regular main page exposure. —WFC— 11:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've no problem at all with the directors selecting FLs until we have a community-based selection system in place. It's necessary to stop the whole thing grinding to a halt before it's even started.

You may have a point on over-representation of particular topics (though one could argue that TFL should accurately represent the FLs we have), but I think the risk is that we inflate the importance of The Rules™ and don't focus enough on the question of whether there's any reason a nomination shouldn't be TFL. I think people will be quick to spot that we have two similar FLs in a row scheduled without the need for points or the TFA/R-style rule creep. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A sports list every 3–4 weeks wouldn't be that big deal, and hopefully the percentage will fall back slightly, as TFL draws in a new and diverse group of list-writers. It's if/when we look to expand to a more regular slot that we might start to struggle on the diversity front. —WFC— 23:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What should I do?

When an article is scheduled to be the TFA of the day, I notify main editors about it, to avoid any kind of problems and confusions. When Wikipedia celebrated its 10 anniversary, the blurb of that day (Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 15, 2011) included three non-FA articles, including Moons of Saturn as the featured list of the day. Due the {{ArticleHistory}} only includes the "|maindate=" to be used on the TFA, I improvised an {{imbox}}, which is used by the TF Picture, as this:

I'd like to know if the TFL will have an space on the {{ArticleHistory}} or if I should use the {{imbox}} I improvised, (either temporary or indefinitely). ۞ Tbhotch™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 02:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I have made a request for the code to be added to {{ArticleHistory}}, but no-one has responded. If someone understands the template's code, could they please paste changes on the template talk page and add {{editprotected}}. Tbhotch, using {{imbox}} seems like the best idea for now. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed addition to ArticleHistory is something I would support (haven't looked at the code as I'd doubtless not understand it).
As far as notifying the significant contributor, for the 15 or so lists we have touched thus far, the significant contributor was notified at an early stage, when not the nominator. Ideally we should aim for a double-check: one (informal) notification at the submission stage, another ({{imbox}} looks great) to let them know when it has been scheduled. Because supply will doubtless outstrip demand, those two notifications could well be weeks or even months apart. —WFC— 11:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I adapted {{ArticleHistory}} to display, link to and categorize "Today's featured list" when maindate= is added. Category:Featured lists that have appeared on the main page needs to be created though. — Edokter (talk) — 12:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —WFC— 12:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And it now also fills Category:Featured lists that have not appeared on the main page. — Edokter (talk) — 12:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Edokter. Unfortunately, I think your changes introduced some bugs; see Template talk:ArticleHistory#New cat. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible to reuse existing parameters for a second purpose, but doing so tends to involve unexpected bugs. As coded in [2], a FL with a mainpage appearance won't have some details shown right if it becomes FFL. There are likely to be other problems. It is likely to be simpler to duplicate the maindate code and call it flmaindate or something. That's fairly safe and will handle unusual cases like pages that have been both FA and FL. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to account for FFLs. As for 'unusual' cases; I've never seen an FL being featured before (except for our 10th anniversary), and I don't forsee any list making FA anytime soon. — Edokter (talk) — 15:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At least one FFA became FL, and it had a mainpage appearance while FA as I recall. This is why conditionals on currentstatus can be problematic. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know which one so I can have a look? — Edokter (talk) — 16:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Provinces of Thailand. Might also want to look at €2 commemorative coins. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see the problem. I'll see what i can do. — Edokter (talk) — 16:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(←) The template now treats any old FA before 2011-06-13 as it always has, and handles newer entries as either FA or FL (in the presumption that from now on, an article cannot be FA and FL at the same time). — Edokter (talk) — 17:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick editnotice request

Please could an admin add {{TFL-editnotice}} to Template:Editnotices/Page/List of signs and symptoms of diving disorders (the list is question is scheduled to go on the main page in 25 minutes). When I created the editnotice template, I forgot to set up an automatic process along the lines of TFA. I'll try to make sure that today is the only time we need to add/remove the editnotice manually. Thanks in advance, —WFC— 23:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — KV5 • Talk • 23:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Sorry about the confusion in the preparation section above by the way. —WFC— 23:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No big. I'm as anxious for this to go live as anyone, so I'm just trying to help out any way I can. — KV5 • Talk • 23:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Same here, although as a non-admin there's little I can do other than reporting and (worst case scenario) anti-vandal work. Still pinching myself that this is finally happening. —WFC— 23:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you ever need an admin task for this and don't want to bother a director, you can ping me. I'm usually somewhere near the computer when it's not work time around here. — KV5 • Talk • 23:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And we are now live. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Aaand we're live! — Edokter (talk) — 00:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who of the directors are admins? As it is required to place editnotices and protect locally uploaded images. — Edokter (talk) — 00:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and I are sysops. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I updated the instructions in the first section. They should probably get a permanent spot. — Edokter (talk) — 00:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Today%27s_featured_list&oldid=433966328

Leave a Reply